United States v. Leal, 81 M.J. 613

Appellant Leal was originally convicted (Leal I) of abusive sexual contact; this conviction was set aside on appeal because the specification failed to state an offense and the court authorized "a new trial . . . upon a different specification."
Fresh charges (Leal II) were referred based on the same conduct: assault (acquitted) and maltreatment (convicted). Members sentenced Leal to reduction to E-5 and 15 days restriction; Convening Authority approved.
A junior member (Chief H) reported that the panel president (CAPT B) expressed "we have to find this guy guilty of something" during deliberations; defense requested and received a post-trial hearing into possible unlawful command influence (UCI).
The military judge’s post-trial inquiry focused on whether members were subjectively able to vote according to conscience and limited many defense questions; the judge denied a mistrial. The court below found the record inadequate to determine UCI.
There was excessive post-trial delay: 637 days from sentencing to docketing (340 days to Convening Authority action; 297 days from action to docketing), with the Government admitting administrative error; the court found a due-process violation and cognizable prejudice.
Considering both an inadequate UCI inquiry and unreasonable post-trial delay, the court set aside findings and sentence and dismissed the charge and specification with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was denied the right to examine members during an Article 39(a) post-trial session (Fifth & Sixth Amendment claim)	Leal: the judge improperly limited counsel’s ability to examine members, prejudicing rights	Gov: the judge’s conduct was proper and did not violate constitutional or statutory rights	No merit — court found no violation on this ground
Whether the military judge failed to develop an adequate record on alleged unlawful command influence and abused discretion by denying a mistrial	Leal: Chief H’s report and member statements provided "some evidence" of rank-based influence; judge failed to allocate burdens and failed to inquire into objective manifestations or apparent UCI	Gov: the post-trial inquiry and denials were sufficient; no UCI that tainted findings	Court: judge erred — inadequate inquiry and analysis into actual and apparent UCI; record insufficient to determine impact
Whether unreasonable post-trial delay denied due process	Leal: 637-day delay violated Moreno standards, prejudiced his ability to litigate UCI and appeal	Gov: delay resulted from administrative error; argues relief is unwarranted given other factors	Court: delay was presumptively unreasonable, Barker factors show due-process violation and cognizable prejudice; relief required

United States v. Boudreaux, 35 M.J. 291 (C.M.A.) (continuing jurisdiction doctrine; rehearing relates back to original trial)
United States v. Lee, 72 M.J. 581 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.) (continued jurisdiction despite dismissal and referral of new charges), aff'd, 73 M.J. 166 (C.A.A.F.)
United States v. Biagase, 50 M.J. 143 (C.A.A.F.) (threshold and burden-shifting framework for unlawful command influence)
United States v. Carr, 18 M.J. 297 (C.M.A.) (panel president rank influence falls within M.R.E. 606(b) exception)
United States v. Straight, 42 M.J. 244 (C.A.A.F.) (presumption of prejudice from UCI and limits on probing subjective effects)
United States v. Dugan, 58 M.J. 253 (C.A.A.F.) (limits on permissible inquiry under M.R.E. 606(b))
United States v. Harvey, 64 M.J. 13 (C.A.A.F.) (military judge is last sentinel; duty to investigate UCI; allocation of burdens)
United States v. Lewis, 63 M.J. 405 (C.A.A.F.) (apparent UCI standard: objective reasonable-observer test)
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.) (post-trial delay standards and three benchmarks)
United States v. Gore, 60 M.J. 178 (C.A.A.F.) (dismissal is drastic remedy; framework for relief)